# Fork İlgili Makaleler

HTX Haber Merkezi, kripto endüstrisindeki piyasa trendleri, proje güncellemeleri, teknoloji gelişmeleri ve düzenleyici politikaları kapsayan "Fork" hakkında en son makaleleri ve derinlemesine analizleri sunmaktadır.

Core 'Key Contributors' Depart One After Another, Has Aave's DAO Dream Shattered?

Recent weeks have seen major internal turbulence within Aave, one of DeFi’s most successful DAOs. The Aave Chan Initiative (ACI), a core governance team, announced it would cease operations and exit the ecosystem on March 3, following the departure of BGD Labs, the development team behind Aave V3, just two weeks earlier. The crisis stems from governance disputes that began in December, when Aave Labs unilaterally switched the protocol’s front-end aggregator from ParaSwap to CoW Swap, redirecting fee revenue from the DAO treasury to Aave Labs. In response, Aave Labs proposed the bundled “Aave Will Win” proposal in February, requesting $51M in funding for V4 development in exchange for routing all future product revenue to the DAO and phasing out V3. ACI strongly criticized the proposal, alleging that a significant portion of supporting votes came from addresses linked to Aave Labs, raising concerns about self-dealing and lack of transparency. Despite ACI’s attempts to introduce stricter accountability measures, their proposals were not adopted. The departures of both BGD Labs and ACI—key contributors responsible for technical development and governance—raise serious questions about Aave’s future, including technical risks associated with transitioning to V4 and the centralization of decision-making power. The situation highlights broader challenges in DAO governance, where power often remains concentrated among founders, developers despite the ideal of decentralized token-holder control. Moving forward, the resolution of the “Aave Will Win” proposal and the possibility of a protocol fork remain critical points to watch. How Aave addresses its governance flaws and rebalances power among stakeholders may determine its ability to sustain long-term growth.

比推03/03 23:09

Core 'Key Contributors' Depart One After Another, Has Aave's DAO Dream Shattered?

比推03/03 23:09

The Dilemma Without a Moat: Why Couldn't Optimism Keep Base?

The article "The Dilemma of No Moat: Why Couldn't Optimism Keep Base?" discusses how Optimism's strategic decision to release the OP Stack under the permissive MIT license enabled widespread adoption, making it the dominant infrastructure for Ethereum scaling. However, this move also eliminated barriers to exit, allowing major chains like Base (built by Coinbase) to use the technology without obligation. Base grew to contribute over 96% of Optimism Collective's gas fees but eventually left the Superchain ecosystem, citing technical efficiency and autonomy. The promised native interoperability feature—the core value proposition for revenue sharing—never materialized, reducing incentives for Base to remain. The departure triggered a significant drop in OP's token value, highlighting a recurring pattern in open-source projects where value accrues to entities controlling distribution (like Coinbase) rather than those building the technology. The article contrasts Optimism's approach with Arbitrum's more restrictive, contract-based model and concludes that sustainable value in L2 networks lies not in forkable technology but in structural advantages like user bases and liquidity depth.

marsbit03/02 09:56

The Dilemma Without a Moat: Why Couldn't Optimism Keep Base?

marsbit03/02 09:56

Bitcoin’s post-quantum plan BIP-360 gains traction, but will it reverse market sell-off?

Bitcoin is advancing its post-quantum security with the BIP-360 proposal, a soft fork designed to mitigate quantum computing risks for Taproot (P2TR) addresses. These addresses, which once held over half of Bitcoin’s supply, commit public keys on-chain, making them vulnerable to "long exposure attacks" from future quantum computers. BIP-360 proposes replacing the exposed "key-to-spend" path with Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR) to keep data private. Although Taproot usage has dropped from 54% to 22% since early 2024, the update only addresses part of the quantum risk. The proposal is seen as a step toward broader quantum security. Market analysts suggest resolving this FUD could renew investor confidence and potentially reverse the current sell-off, possibly driving Bitcoin to new all-time highs.

ambcrypto02/14 05:02

Bitcoin’s post-quantum plan BIP-360 gains traction, but will it reverse market sell-off?

ambcrypto02/14 05:02

How Did the Idealism of Western Founders Get 'Taken Over' by Chinese Buyers?

Over the course of two days, two major decentralized social protocols, Lens Protocol and Farcaster, were acquired—by Mask Network and Neynar, respectively. Combined, these protocols had raised over $200 million, with Farcaster recently valued at $1 billion. This follows the earlier acquisition of Steem by Tron in 2020, meaning two out of three prominent decentralized social protocols are now been taken over by Chinese-led teams. The author explores why Chinese buyers are stepping in. One reason may be pricing: these acquisitions often target once-prominent projects now in decline. For instance, Farcaster’s monthly revenue has dropped over 95%, and Lens has only 50,000 monthly active users. Another factor is cultural: while Western founders often approach decentralized social with idealism—emphasizing user-owned data and censorship resistance—Chinese acquirers tend to view it as a business opportunity, prioritizing usability and growth over ideology. Suji Yan, founder of Mask Network, explicitly aims to move “decentralized social from the lab to daily life.” However, past acquisitions like Steem—which led to a community fork—highlight risks when new ownership clashes with original values. The piece questions whether true decentralization is possible when protocols can be sold, suggesting that technical decentralization doesn’t prevent centralized commercial control. Ultimately, the piece argues that the vision for a better social infrastructure remains, but the builders and operators may increasingly be pragmatic, commercially-driven teams—many from China.

比推01/22 12:42

How Did the Idealism of Western Founders Get 'Taken Over' by Chinese Buyers?

比推01/22 12:42

Base Contributes 70% of Revenue but Pays Only 2.5% in 'Rent', Superchain May Enter Countdown to 'Breakup'

Base, Coinbase's L2 network, contributes approximately 71% of Superchain's sequencer revenue but pays only 2.5% of its income to Optimism Collective. This revenue concentration is increasing, while OP token prices have plummeted 93% from their peak, despite Base’s TVL growing 48%. The MIT-licensed OP Stack allows Coinbase to fork or renegotiate terms at any time. Base’s minimal governance participation and recent independent infrastructure developments (e.g., a Solana bridge using Chainlink CCIP) suggest reduced reliance on Superchain. Coinbase has begun exploring a native BASE token, which could overlap with or supersede OP governance, potentially leading to renegotiated revenue sharing or full exit. Optimism’s 118M OP token grant to Base offers limited binding value. OP holders face significant asymmetric risk: limited upside from Base’s growth but severe downside if Coinbase reduces payments or exits. Market pricing reflects poor value accrual to OP but not yet the exit risk.

marsbit01/09 04:39

Base Contributes 70% of Revenue but Pays Only 2.5% in 'Rent', Superchain May Enter Countdown to 'Breakup'